Drone strikes and surveillance are a major component of modern warfare, but few people outside the military understand how these programs work. That's why former military technician Lisa Ling became a whistleblower after 14 years in the National Guard. She wanted policymakers to know that drones are not reliable, and they can create more problems than they solve.

Lisa Ling joined the military in 1991, serving as an army medic and nurse before transferring to the Air National Guard (ANG). In the ANG, she became a communications technician working on various types of electronic equipment, including the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). Besides her overseas deployments, Lisa was mobilized during a partial unit mobilization of the 234th intelligence Squadron to the 48th Intelligence Squadron at Beale Air Force Base from October 2007 to September 2009. The 48th Intelligence Squadron provides in-garrison and deployed communications, as well as logistics maintenance for the DCGS.

Lisa served six years on active duty and over 14 years as both active and inactive National Guard. She decided to speak out after traveling to Afghanistan and seeing for herself how what she participated in was not a war on terror, but a war of terror. She has testified about drones before the European Parliament, and she was profiled in the documentary film National Bird, directed by Sonia Kennebeck.

Join Ars Technica editors Annalee Newitz and Cyrus Farivar in conversation with Lisa tonight, July 19 at Ars Technica Live in Oakland, California.

She'll discuss her experiences and explain technical issues with drones that have profound implications for the current War on Terror. There will be plenty of time for audience questions, too.

Ars Live takes place on the third Wednesday of every month at Eli's Mile High Club in Oakland (3629 MLK Way). They have the best tater tots you've ever eaten. So crispy!

Doors open at 7pm, and the live filming is from 7:30pm to 8:20-ish (be sure to get there early if you want a seat). Stick around afterward for informal discussion, beer, and snacks. Can't make it out to Oakland? Never fear! Episodes will be posted to Ars Technica the week after the live events.

The event is free but space is limited, so RSVP using Eventbrite. You can also keep up with the latest Ars Live doings on Facebook. See you soon, Bay Area Arsians!

So the technical issues with drones, not the ethical issues with drones?

Yeah..I am betting just the opposite.

Probably civilian deaths under Dubya Bush and that created more terrorists.

seeing for herself how what she participated in was not a war on terror, but a war of terror.

But I could be wrong, it could be about challenges of flying a drone from the opposite side of the world, and protecting them against hijacking and such.

From the website for National Bird:

Quote:

At the center of the film are three U.S. military veterans. Plagued by guilt over participating in the killing of faceless people in foreign countries, they decide to speak out publicly, despite the possible consequences.Their stories take dramatic turns, leading one of the protagonists to Afghanistan where she learns about a horrendous incident. But her journey also gives hope for peace and redemption.

There is a very false idea being presented by the article as written to make it sound like this is a technical story. In reality, this appears to be just a standard discussion of military ethics and tactics which apply regardless of the tool used. Bullshit playing on the cachet of "drones" instead of dealing with command decisions and intel as the source of such quandaries.

All of the same issues exist equally so with missiles, bombs, manned aircraft, tanks, mortars, and even boots on the ground.

So the technical issues with drones, not the ethical issues with drones?

Yeah..I am betting just the opposite.

Probably civilian deaths under Dubya Bush and that created more terrorists.

seeing for herself how what she participated in was not a war on terror, but a war of terror.

But I could be wrong, it could be about challenges of flying a drone from the opposite side of the world, and protecting them against hijacking and such.

Check the website for National Bird:

Quote:

At the center of the film are three U.S. military veterans. Plagued by guilt over participating in the killing of faceless people in foreign countries, they decide to speak out publicly, despite the possible consequences.Their stories take dramatic turns, leading one of the protagonists to Afghanistan where she learns about a horrendous incident. But her journey also gives hope for peace and redemption.

There is a very false idea being presented by the article as written to make it sound like this is a technical story. It appears as just a standard discussion of military ethics and tactics which apply regardless of the tool used. Bullshit playing on the cachet of "drones" instead of dealing with command decisions and intel as the source of such quandaries.

That's a bit of a shame because the technical issues are also pretty interesting. Getting realtime high quality video halfway across the world from a small flying aircraft that is trying to remain covert in hostile territory is no mean feat.

There is a very false idea being presented by the article as written to make it sound like this is a technical story. It appears as just a standard discussion of military ethics and tactics which apply regardless of the tool used. Bullshit playing on the cachet of "drones" instead of dealing with command decisions and intel as the source of such quandaries.

That's always the problem I have when people start complaining about "drone warfare". Unless you have no problems with the exact same weapons being dropped on the exact same targets from say a F-16 or B-1B, then your complaint basically has nothing to do with drones.

If you want to complain about US foreign policy and military tactics, go right ahead. Just don't try to frame that talk as some sort of technical, drone related issue.

So the technical issues with drones, not the ethical issues with drones?

It might not be bait and switch..

It may be about the technical issues of replacing ground troops as well as air support with remote units. Whether infantry gun platforms or crawling bombs there are still Dalek problems when it comes to unusual terrain, like stairs. The aircraft have it easy.Then there is the huge amount of automation taken to replace the entire crew of battle ships and aircraft carriers and other naval vessels.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

If you want a research project, a few years ago I found details on wiki leaks regarding how Al Qaeda was intercepting video. There is (hard to believe) some sort of drone SDK that vendors use to write control software. Al Qaeda for a hold of the SDK.

So the technical issues with drones, not the ethical issues with drones?

Yeah..I am betting just the opposite.

Probably civilian deaths under Dubya Bush and that created more terrorists.

seeing for herself how what she participated in was not a war on terror, but a war of terror.

But I could be wrong, it could be about challenges of flying a drone from the opposite side of the world, and protecting them against hijacking and such.

If you are referring to Iran hijacking a drone, I'm not convinced that actually happened. I could believe e they jammed the control signal and GPS, making it crash.

Yeah, I dont think it was reported that they hijacked one, I recall it as one malfunctioned/crashed and they recovered it in whole. Which means a pretty drastic failure as we usually have circuitry built to fry the most important parts. I had the video hijacking in mind and the thought that it might be possible to hijack the control signals as well...it wouldnt be the first time we have had poor opsec be exposed.

So the technical issues with drones, not the ethical issues with drones?

Yeah..I am betting just the opposite.

Probably civilian deaths under Dubya Bush and that created more terrorists.

seeing for herself how what she participated in was not a war on terror, but a war of terror.

But I could be wrong, it could be about challenges of flying a drone from the opposite side of the world, and protecting them against hijacking and such.

Yeah...old President Bush and his drone strikes. Wait...wasn't there someone after him serving as President?

Quote:

On January 23, 2009, just three days into his presidency, President Obama authorized his first kinetic military action: two drone strikes, three hours apart, in Waziristan, Pakistan, that killed as many as twenty civilians. Two terms and 540 strikes later, Obama leaves the White House after having vastly expanding and normalizing the use of armed drones for counterterrorism and close air support operations in non-battlefield settings—namely Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

Enilc: According to the article, she left in 2009, so I am giving her the benefit of the doubt that she is more focused on what happened while she was there.

Grrrr....It's ideaology. It's been around since before the US founding in varying degrees. It probably wont ever go away either, just like christians and jews.

Before people here start yelling islamophobia, it isnt all of islam, but it's ...more pure... sects are as virulent as any hate group.

And to answer your last question is pretty simple from a military perspective. Drones are cheaper than soldiers. Do you send boys to die or metal to a scrap heap? If I can hit you from a few thousand miles away with pin point accuracy, why would I endanger live bodies with direct conflict.

Enilc: According to the article, she left in 2009, so I am giving her the benefit of the doubt that she is more focused on what happened while she was there.

Grrrr....It's ideaology. It's been around since before the US founding in varying degrees. It probably wont ever go away either, just like christians and jews.

Before people here start yelling islamophobia, it isnt all of islam, but it's ...more pure... sects are as virulent as any hate group.

And to answer your last question is pretty simple from a military perspective. Drones are cheaper than soldiers. Do you send boys to die or metal to a scrap heap? If I can hit you from a few thousand miles away with pin point accuracy, why would I endanger live bodies with direct conflict.

No of course not. The ideology of isis has nothing to do with the culture that gave us algebra algorithms that build the Alhambra for example. It is something new and it is a reaction on what we are doing over there.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

We are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the Pottery Barn rule. Syria, Yemen,etc. Is another story.

Daesh is being defeated with low tech gear for the most part. Just men and women with rifles. But there will always be name-your-flavor terrorists.

The high tech gear is used because boots on the ground is very unpopular.

So the technical issues with drones, not the ethical issues with drones?

Yeah..I am betting just the opposite.

Probably civilian deaths under Dubya Bush and that created more terrorists.

seeing for herself how what she participated in was not a war on terror, but a war of terror.

But I could be wrong, it could be about challenges of flying a drone from the opposite side of the world, and protecting them against hijacking and such.

If you are referring to Iran hijacking a drone, I'm not convinced that actually happened. I could believe e they jammed the control signal and GPS, making it crash.

Yeah, I dont think it was reported that they hijacked one, I recall it as one malfunctioned/crashed and they recovered it in whole. Which means a pretty drastic failure as we usually have circuitry built to fry the most important parts. I had the video hijacking in mind and the thought that it might be possible to hijack the control signals as well...it wouldnt be the first time we have had poor opsec be exposed.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

We are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the Pottery Barn rule. Syria, Yemen,etc. Is another story.

Daesh is being defeated with low tech gear for the most part. Just men and women with rifles. But there will always be name-your-flavor terrorists.

The high tech gear is used because boots on the ground is very unpopular.

I think you're undervaluing air support and cruise missile strikes (and yes--drone strikes.) You cannot seize territory without boots on the ground, but those boots need support.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

We are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the Pottery Barn rule. Syria, Yemen,etc. Is another story.

Daesh is being defeated with low tech gear for the most part. Just men and women with rifles. But there will always be name-your-flavor terrorists.

The high tech gear is used because boots on the ground is very unpopular.

I think you're undervaluing air support and cruise missile strikes (and yes--drone strikes.) You cannot seize territory without boots on the ground, but those boots need support.

Story of Iraqi soldier in taking MosulI wanted to link that article as it shows the combination of low tech and high tech. He went in and found enemy positions, killed a half dozen, reported back and the US air striked the positions before the Iraqi army marched in.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

We are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the Pottery Barn rule. Syria, Yemen,etc. Is another story.

Daesh is being defeated with low tech gear for the most part. Just men and women with rifles. But there will always be name-your-flavor terrorists.

The high tech gear is used because boots on the ground is very unpopular.

I think you're undervaluing air support and cruise missile strikes (and yes--drone strikes.) You cannot seize territory without boots on the ground, but those boots need support.

You need ISR. No argument there. But you don't need armed drones for ISR.

I thumbed through my copy of Matt Martin's "Predator." When the dust settled, they really didn't accomplish much with the drone program as far as terminating the enemy. Spotting IED planting was certainly valuable. They used Predators to patrol the base.

Often Martin didn't get the approval the shoot. When your ability to clearly define the enemy is shaky, that is probably par for the course. Every grandmother they wacked made the front page.

So the technical issues with drones, not the ethical issues with drones?

Yeah..I am betting just the opposite.

Probably civilian deaths under Dubya Bush and that created more terrorists.

seeing for herself how what she participated in was not a war on terror, but a war of terror.

But I could be wrong, it could be about challenges of flying a drone from the opposite side of the world, and protecting them against hijacking and such.

Check the website for National Bird:

Quote:

At the center of the film are three U.S. military veterans. Plagued by guilt over participating in the killing of faceless people in foreign countries, they decide to speak out publicly, despite the possible consequences.Their stories take dramatic turns, leading one of the protagonists to Afghanistan where she learns about a horrendous incident. But her journey also gives hope for peace and redemption.

There is a very false idea being presented by the article as written to make it sound like this is a technical story. It appears as just a standard discussion of military ethics and tactics which apply regardless of the tool used. Bullshit playing on the cachet of "drones" instead of dealing with command decisions and intel as the source of such quandaries.

That's a bit of a shame because the technical issues are also pretty interesting. Getting realtime high quality video halfway across the world from a small flying aircraft that is trying to remain covert in hostile territory is no mean feat.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

We are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the Pottery Barn rule. Syria, Yemen,etc. Is another story.

Daesh is being defeated with low tech gear for the most part. Just men and women with rifles. But there will always be name-your-flavor terrorists.

The high tech gear is used because boots on the ground is very unpopular.

I think you're undervaluing air support and cruise missile strikes (and yes--drone strikes.) You cannot seize territory without boots on the ground, but those boots need support.

Story of Iraqi soldier in taking MosulI wanted to link that article as it shows the combination of low tech and high tech. He went in and found enemy positions, killed a half dozen, reported back and the US air striked the positions before the Iraqi army marched in.

There are other ways to reconnoiter areas. A race quad can go almost anywhere and is maybe $600 for a nice one. You can lose one and toss up another in seconds. Very few will be hit by gunfire.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

We are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the Pottery Barn rule. Syria, Yemen,etc. Is another story.

Daesh is being defeated with low tech gear for the most part. Just men and women with rifles. But there will always be name-your-flavor terrorists.

The high tech gear is used because boots on the ground is very unpopular.

I think you're undervaluing air support and cruise missile strikes (and yes--drone strikes.) You cannot seize territory without boots on the ground, but those boots need support.

Story of Iraqi soldier in taking MosulI wanted to link that article as it shows the combination of low tech and high tech. He went in and found enemy positions, killed a half dozen, reported back and the US air striked the positions before the Iraqi army marched in.

There are other ways to reconnoiter areas. Could

Yes there are if you have American boots on the ground. Something Obama would not allow under any circumstances. *even though we did have boots on the ground, just not media advertised. But the Iraqi military is in control of troops, we just bomb shit for them, so they had to depend on their military capabilities.

And, I hope someone knits that ol boy a ball warmer, because I hear brass gets really cold, and his have got to be solid brass for what he did.

Is "oh well, I have to kill 20 people to get the one I want because they are all standing next to each other and all I have is this massive bomb" considered a technical problem? Seems to me like America has a morality problem.

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

Violation of your secrecy oath to uphold the above oath is the sign of a true patriot. I'm not saying this is what is happening in this case, but breaking the secrecy oath does not necessarily mean that the person is a traitor.

My honest guess though is that you are an authoritarian shitbag, a true traitor to America, and will not give two shits that my comment represents the truth.

A number of former Reaper/Predator drivers have written books and have discussed technical issues.

One issue is dish slew. You can't turn a drone too quickly else the dish will loose track. Hopefully it goes into auto pilot (generally orbit) until tracking returns.

The other issue, though not exactly limited to drones, is the issue of using high standoff weapons. If your missile takes 45 seconds to reach the target, you never know who might wander into the target zone such as children.

My problem with drone warfare is the use of "signature strikes." If the individual is a MAM (military age male) with what is perceived to be a weapon, that fits the signature. It isn't like they know exactly who they are shooting. Now in a traditional land war, the situation is similar if you think about it, but your view of the enemy is better.

Then my next problem is we are fighting ideology, not a nation state. The enemy will never be totally defeated since you can't kill an ideology.

I am not so sure if we are fighting an ideology or are creating an ideology by fighting.The people we are talking about here are not really all that dangerous really when you consider the weapons and there economic power so why do we need all this high technology to defeat them?

That would be because the war on terror isn't about defeating terrorists, it's about enriching the already rich.

The trade center towers were not brought down by demo charges, but I am not convinced that the official story is true. The point that really makes me suspicious is there hasn't been a single video, or even decent still frame, of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon. It seems to me that would be one of the most surveilled places on the planet and no video. It really makes little difference though, whether perpetrated from within or without it has been used to justify massive expenditures that are making the rich richer.